Mexico weekly ledger. (Mexico, Mo.) 1855-1956, 1887-02-03

loi WuiSA bC pA0yo JaNkAuSAs uS Sn12se
defendant.
Plaintiff for another and further
Cause Of action against defendant.
states that the defendant heretofore,
to-wit, at the county Of Boone, State
of Missouri, on the - day Of No
vember. 1885, and on or about the
- of December, 1886, and repeat
edly during the months of January,
February and March, 1886, contriv-
ing and wickedly and maliciousIy in
tending to injure and damage the
plaintiff in his good name, fame and
credit, and to bring him into public
scandal, infamy and disgrace with
and among his neighbors, acquain-
tances and other good citizens Of this
state, and to cause it to be suspected
and believed by his said neigbors,
acquaintances and citizens of this
state, that plaintiff WAS and had been
guilty of the crime of grand larceny
in the several discourses, which de-
fendant, at the times and places afore-
said, had of, and concerning, the
plaintiff. and of the taking
or stealing Of the cattle OF
defendant short time therefore, iu
the presence and hearing of divers
good citizens of this state, did falsely
and maliciously speak and publish the
following false and slanderous words,
concerning the plaintiff, and the tax
ing or stealing of said cattle, that is
to say, "T' (meaning defendant)
shave had stolen from my farm, six.
teen or seventeen head of fat cattle,
and have tracked them to Centralia,
and ''I' meaning defendantl shave
good reason TO believe and am salts.
fed that Barnes" (meaning plaintiff)
got them and shipped them;" "I''
(meaning defendant) have lost a lot
of beef cattle, car load, and am sat.
isfied that 'Barnes" (mesning plain.
tif) "and that fellow Forshey took
and shipped them;" "Forshey stole
my (meaning defendant's) seattle,
and turned them over to his partner VI
(meaning plaintIfO land he" (mean.
ing PLAINTIFF shipped them;" "I'
(meaning defendant) ''arn satisfied
that Rarnes (meaning plaintiff) "and
Forshey got my" (meaning defend.
ant'sl ''cst,le, and I" (meaning de.
fendsnt) have got spies and detec.
tives watching them, (meaning plain.
tiff and Forsbey) land setting traps
for them, and expect to prosecute
and convict them yet"
Thereby then and there mean.
ing and intending falsely and nalic
ously charge the plaintiff with the
crime of grand larceny and said cit
izens. in whose presence and hearing
were so spoken as aforesaid by the
defendant as aforesaid, so understood
them and believed and understood
the defendant to Impute to the plain
tiff the crime of grand larceny. By
reason whereof plaintiff says he i,
greatly damaged to-wit: In the sun
of ten thousand dollars, for which b,
sues and asks Judgment against tn,
defendant.
The SANDER suit cf Barnes vs
Sims began last Saturday. Th,
nsmes Of the jury can be found
elsewhere in this issue. The follow
ing is the defendants answer in brief
Answer first admits that defend
ants cattle we're stolen. and denies
each and every allegation and aver
ment in plaintiffs petition contained
in each and all of the three counts
The answer then sets up the fact tha
soon after the cattle we're stolen de
fendant and others trailed them to.
wards Centralia. That when the,
reached plaintiffs pasture, nesr Cen
tralia. they found the trail oblitera
ted by cattle having passed over the
road in the opposite direction. De
fendant was informed that plaintiff
said his (plaintiff's) cattle escaped
from his pasture in the night tint
and strayed over the road. Defend.
ant made inquiries and was informed
that plaintiffs cattle had not broker
the fences, but defendant was relia
hly informed and believed that til,
plaintiff or some one acting for hin
drove his (plaintiff's) cattle over th
road, whether for the purpose o
obliterating the trail of defendant
cattle, defendant does not know
Defendant failed to find any trai
of his cattle beyond Centralia IN an,
direction, and was informed tha
plaintiff shipped car load of cattl,
from Centralia in the night time
about the time defendants cattle wer
stolen, under such circumstances q
excited suspicion. That deiendan
was informed that one Forshey wa
a partner of plaintiff and knew hi
transactions. That Forshey had toll
divers persons that plaintiff stole de
fendant's cattle. That plaintiff
place of doing his banking bushes
is Centralia, but be had the return
for his cattle shipped about this tim
sent to Kirksvilie. That the investi
cations which defendant made t
discover the party who stole his cattl
and the information he obtained fror
others led him to believe that plain
tiff stole them. The plaintiff Wa
totally unknown to defendant. Tha
he (defendant) never saw the plain
tiff until after this suit was csmmenc
ed. That defendant was informe'
that plaintiff was q man of smsl
means, but that short time after th
theft OF the cattle plaintiff seeme
10 have ready money with which t
buy cattle, though be had lost none
on all cattle shipped for some tim
prior thereto.
Defendant was fully informed o
the facts and circumstances, and ma
have communicated the fact that b
suspicioned plaintiff Of having stole
his (defendant's) cattle, but that b
did it without malice, and that b
always narrated the facts and Gil
cumstances which gave rise to hi
suspicious, but that be did it witt
out any malace or i'll will toward th
plaintiff
That plaintiff well knew what fact
and Circumstances defendant had bee